Chris Ward
MP for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven · Labour · United Kingdom
“My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. She has raised it with me previously, and she is a fantastic champion for her constituents. As she knows, I am working with the National Shipbuilding Office to bring forward the new rules. Shipbuilding is one of the areas that we are prioritising.”
“A number of colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), have raised this subject several times with me, and I am working with Department for Transport colleagues to see what more we can do to support British manufacturers, but we are already acting.”
“The hon. Member is absolutely right that we need to do more to support SMEs, and that we need to use our procurement budget to do that. I have announced some of the steps that we have already taken.”
“This Government are determined to ensure that public procurement backs small and medium-sized businesses. That is why we have strengthened late payment rules, have set ambitious targets for all Departments to spend more with small and medium-sized enterprises—totalling £7 billion by 2028—and are simplifying the entire system to ensure tha…”
“I absolutely do. We announced last week that we will bring all Government Property Agency, catering and security services back in-house, or at least that it is our intention to do that.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight small businesses like the one in her constituency. As I announced in March, small businesses will now receive just over £7 billion a year from government procurement, as a result of reforms that we have put in place. That will support the industrial strategy that she mentioned.”
The complete record
Every one of 352 lines we hold for Chris Ward, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 8.
“I agree that more money from the procurement budget should be going to SMEs, and we are already taking steps to do that. We have announced powers so that contracts can be reserved in local communities and we have increased the amount of Government spending. As I have said, the spending targets across Whitehall mean that for the first time over £7 billion of Government money will now go to SMEs. I am working closely with the Federation of Small Businesses and lots of small businesses on that. I thank the FSB and others because the reforms announced today, which are aimed at supporting SMEs and voluntary sector organisations, have been designed in collaboration with them. They know that the system is not working, just as I know it is not working, and we need to get more money down to those businesses.”
“I appreciate how important Denby Pottery is to my hon. Friend’s constituency and how difficult it will be for workers there at the moment. I understand that Government officials have been working with Denby Pottery in recent weeks to ensure that support is in place as the administration process unfolds, and I hope that will support the workers affected as much as possible. I think she will have some support from Members on the Bench behind her on the broader point about the ceramics industry. In this package I have announced that we will look at the four sectors that are immediately critical to national security using the existing powers we have. That is not where I want to stop, but it is what I can do at the moment. I want to go further, and I am very happy to work with my hon. Friend and others to try to do so.”
“Trade union rights are not inconsistent with what I am setting out. I am sorry, but I do not know what point the hon. Gentleman is making, because there is no requirement to have trade union recognition in Government contracts in the procurement system. I am not changing that or how that plays out; I am trying to simplify the system and remove burdens where I can. I am trying to look at the procurement system from start to finish, strip out all the duplication and erroneous stuff that has crept in and made it like a Christmas tree over time, and make it simpler and fairer. That will happen at the same time as ensuring that we deliver the generation of insourcing that this Government were elected to do, which can bring to an end decades of outsourcing by default.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a link between food security, national security and economic security, which is an increasingly important part. The reforms that we have announced deal, in the first instance, with the four sectors that we feel are the most immediately available with the powers we have, but that is not where we want to end. I am happy to work with him, the farming industry and others to see what more we can do.”
“Yes, the hon. Gentleman can. As he can clearly detect from what I am trying to say, the thrust is that I want to do more to support British businesses and industries, and I want to ensure that we are doing everything we can within the existing powers to do that. We have set out four sectors in which we feel we can do that straightaway, and I am sure there are others that we can look at. I am happy to work with him on that.”
“My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Obviously the shipbuilding industry is incredibly important for her constituency and for others around the country, and specific points in this package are designed to support that. To re-emphasise, we will work with the National Shipbuilding Office to try to work on a specific framework to ensure that we can direct procurement to British companies to deliver shipbuilding. For too long that has not happened, and we have seen in recent weeks and months the importance of having a sovereign capacity to do that. Portsmouth is a fine place to try to do so, as are other places around the country—I should not get too far into that. That is one of the reasons we picked shipbuilding early on and why we will work with the NSO to try to do that, and I am happy to meet with my hon. Friend.”
“It is always nice to have a kind invitation to come up the road to Burgess Hill. The hon. Lady raises a really good point. I do not know the specifics of the company, but she raises exactly the kind of case that we should be trying to support. I am happy to meet, and if she sends me the details of the company, I will look into that.”
“Building on that previous point, it is really important that we do as much as we can to support British farming and have a national plan for food security. I am happy to take up the specifics and to work with my hon. Friend and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on that.”
“I would very much like to do so. I have spoken with the Department for Transport about this. This is a broader issue about how we work with regional authorities and within our system of devolution, because that is where the power lies for some of these decisions. I am working with the Department for Transport on this matter, and I am happy to keep the hon. and learned Gentleman updated on it.”
“Absolutely. We should be much prouder, as a Government and as a political party, about supporting British businesses and local communities. That is what I am trying to do with this statement. On working with others, I have been working on this matter for many months, as did my predecessor—we have worked on this matter with trade unions, businesses, voluntary sector groups and charities. The proposals that I have brought forward are an amalgam, but they are not the end of the road. Work will be done with the unions, businesses and so on to try to get the guidance right and put these through. I should also say that one of the reasons I am particularly proud of some of this work is that it has been welcomed both by trade unions and by businesses.”
“The hon. Member is right to say that part of what I am trying to do is support British businesses and reduce our reliance on others. On his specific point about Palantir, the two contracts to which he refers are NHS and Ministry of Defence-led contracts, so his questions are probably best directed at those Departments. If he wants to write to me, I am happy to try to pick that up as well, but they are NHS and MOD contracts. They did go through the procurement process, but those were the lead Departments.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To clarify, the guidance that we are bringing forward and the reforms that I am talking about today will apply to Government Departments, not to the broader public sector. That is because Ministers and the Government do not have the power to direct beyond Government through mere guidance—I would need primary legislation to do so. That is something we are pushing very hard on, and I hope that legislation will come forward in a future Session. However, what I hope everybody notes, including the market and local authorities, is that the reforms I am announcing today are the reforms that I want to see rolled out across the public sector, working with local authorities as well. We want to test and learn in Government and roll out these reforms more widely, but that would require primary legislation.”
“The hon. Gentleman raises a really good point. As I said, one of the three principles behind this strategy is to reduce duplication, reduce burdens and simplify the system. My feeling in general is that over the years, the people who have held my job have added more and more bits to the Christmas tree, making it more and more unwieldy, and I want to try to strip that back. If it is okay with the hon. Gentleman, I will ask him to write to me about his specific points, and I will pick them up. I am very happy to meet him to discuss those points as well.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ten-minute rule Bill. He has raised an important issue, one that is obviously incredibly important to his constituency and many others. As I say, we are starting with the four industries I have set out today, but we will look at others going forward, and I would be happy to talk with him and see what more we can do in future.”
“I have to say that of all the questions I was mulling over when I was going through this, the impact on Jammie Dodgers was not top of my list, but maybe it should have been—I will think about that. My hon. Friend makes a good point about how the Scottish Government have not used their procurement powers well enough over the years, and the fiascos he highlighted demonstrate that. It is a shame that no one from the SNP is in the Chamber to hear what he says, but it is good that Labour MPs are present to make the case for doing more to support jobs in Scotland.”
“It told me that it was spending £30,000 to £35,000 on a procurement process, having to divert resources that should be used to support people in real need in order to compete in a procurement process that is stacked against it because the big companies and the big providers have the money and expertise they need. We cannot defend that kind of status quo, and I will not do so, which is why we are trying to introduce this strategy.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for his question—he has raised a number of points. He talked about supporting SMEs, which is incredibly important to what the Government are trying to do more broadly, and specifically to what these reforms are trying to do. If you will permit me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I also want to point out that we should do more to support the voluntary sector. In my opinion, the charitable sector does not get a fair enough crack at this, and the system is weighted against it. In particular, I have in mind a visit I made to a women’s centre in my constituency, in Brighton, a fantastic charity that has been doing amazing work for a long time.”
“I would just point out that an opportunity is not a requirement. The question I was being posed was about a requirement to recognise trade unions—that is not the same as an opportunity to reflect that within the system. That is the difference between those statements, and as I have said, nothing in the strategy changes the status of trade unions within the procurement system. What it does is deliver on our really important manifesto commitment to end the age of outsourcing and bring more work in-house.”
“This legislation is also linked to the salaries of Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of Ways and Means, which increase through the same formula. They will also receive back payments dating from 1 April 2023. The Government are bringing forward this order to address a historical misapplication of the 1975 Act, which sets ministerial and certain office holders’ pay. It is a necessary, technical and minimal measure to address a misapplication of the law, and it ensures that the law aligns with long-standing policy under successive Governments. I look forward to hearing from other Members of the Committee.”
“The order’s impact is therefore minimal: it only affects ministerial office holders and a small number of office holders in Westminster. For Ministers, this order will result in no change to their take-home pay—a point I emphasise with no little disappointment! The Prime Minister has maintained that the policy of freezing ministerial salaries for all Ministers will continue; it has been in place since 2008. The order therefore does not affect individuals who choose to take their entitled salaries. The Government have been unable to calculate annual pay increases while work on the order was ongoing, so we will provide back payments to current and former office holders dating back to 1 April 2023, which is when the mistake was identified.”
“This Order in Council is being introduced to ensure that the law aligns with long-standing policy. The order performs two primary functions. First, it resets the statutory salary levels for all Ministers and specified office holders. Given the historical misapplication, resetting the salaries in law will give legal clarity and a baseline for any future uplift. Secondly, the order amends the formula to exclude permanent secretary pay bands from any future calculations. That change simply formalises the policy approach that has already been applied in practice for several decades on a clear legal footing. For the initial financial year beginning 1 April, the order sets out transitional measures where the higher of the old or new formula will be applied to ensure that no individual is disadvantaged by the retrospective effect of this order.”
“That formula set out that ministerial salaries should be increased by the average annual change in the mid-point of senior civil service pay bands. During the financial year ’23-24, the Cabinet Office identified that the formula had been misapplied. Since the introduction of the formula in ’97, the salaries of permanent secretaries have often been excluded from the calculation despite the 1975 Act not permitting such an exclusion. That technical misapplication has happened under successive Administrations over several decades. The formula was originally proposed by the Senior Salaries Review Body, which recommended that permanent secretary pay should not be included in the calculation for ministerial pay. This Government believe that the policy that has been applied since 1997 in line with the SSRB recommendation is the correct approach.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 2026. The draft order flows from the legislation agreed by the House yesterday afternoon, and is a necessary and technical measure to address a historical misapplication of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, which sets ministerial and other office holders’ pay. The office holders within scope are the Leaders of the Opposition in both Houses, the Speakers in both Houses, the Chief Opposition Whips in both Houses and two assistant Opposition Whips in the Commons. The context for the order is that in 1997 a formula was introduced to link pay increases for Ministers and certain office holders to senior civil service pay bands.”
“I thank the Opposition for their broad support. I will not be drawn too far on Whips’ salaries, if that is okay, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which that point was raised. As I said, although it is technical in nature, the order helps to iron out a discrepancy in application, and makes sure that the law has an accurate effect. As I have outlined, it is not about creating new policy or changing ministerial pay. I am afraid that I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question about pension entitlements, but I will get back to him shortly. As I say, the order addresses a historical discrepancy that was entirely accidental and that it is important now to rectify. With that, I commend it to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.”
“Since 2010, an approximate average of 11 Ministers have been unpaid in each Government. I know that is not among the great injustices of our age—hence this is a short Bill—but the Bill addresses a clear inequity that limits those in the other place who are able or willing to take on a ministerial role. This Bill rectifies that, broadening the bench of those able to serve as Ministers. It recognises that private income should never be a requirement to serve as a Government Minister.”
“I thank the limited numbers who took part in this debate, taking advantage of the lack of a time limit. This is a simple Bill with just two clauses, and it has a simple purpose: to increase the number of Ministers who can be paid to 120, which is the average number of Ministers since 2010. It is also rooted in the simple principle that holding ministerial office should not be dependent on individual wealth. The Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General set out, amends the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. It does so to better reflect the nature of modern government, including the number of Ministers any modern Government tend to require. It allows, but does not require, a maximum of 120 salaried members across both Houses. That number is based on the average number of Ministers since 2010 under successive Governments.”
“I remind her that the Labour party has a manifesto commitment to address that, and to ensure that second jobs are permitted only in particular circumstances—for doctors, for instance. The Modernisation Committee is dealing with that issue. I am keen for it to be addressed as quickly as possible, but it will come back to the House. The hon. Lady mentioned the ethics adviser. Let me emphasise again that at the beginning of this Government, the Prime Minister made changes; there was an increase in the role and the independence of the independent advisers, so that they are truly independent—we have seen that they are, on several occasions—and the ethics adviser can now initiate his own inquiries. That is an important point. The hon. Lady also asked what roles the new salaried Ministers would fulfil.”
“As I have said, the size of the Government remains unchanged, and the Government have no intention of increasing it. The purpose is merely to allow higher numbers to be paid, and to remove that inequity. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) raised the issue of the amount of minimum service for severance pay. The Government have already addressed that by introducing a power requiring a Minister to serve for six months before any severance payment can be made, thus removing some of the absurdities under the last Government, which she rightly pointed to. People were being paid for a day, or in some cases a few hours, in the job. She also raised the matter of second jobs.”
“As the Paymaster General said, it does not alter the salaries of Ministers, much to the disappointment of the former Deputy Prime Minister. They will remain frozen, as they have been since 2008. The Bill does not necessarily create additional ministerial roles; this is a point that was raised. Indeed, it simply reflects the average number of roles since 2010. It does not alter the maximum number of paid Commons Ministers, which remains at 95—it effectively reserves 25 places for Lords Ministers—and, of course, it does not affect MPs’ pay, which is rightly entirely independent of this House. All that the Bill will do is increase the maximum number of salaried Ministers, so that it is in line with the average number of Ministers over the last few Parliaments.”
“That is one of the reasons this has come forward, and it is one of the reasons for addressing the inequality with which we are dealing. Let me refer to a point that was raised by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). The Bill will allow, but will not require, one additional salary at Secretary of State rank. It is for the Prime Minister to decide whether or not it goes to a Secretary of State; Parliamentary Under-Secretaries can be rewarded as well, as can Ministers of State. The Bill also allows four additional salaries at Minister of State or Secretary of State level, and 11 additional salaries overall. As I have said, those limits are cumulative, which means that the Prime Minister has discretion to make the awards. There is no prior intention; it is about discretion. Let me turn briefly to what the Bill does not do.”
“The number of Ministers in the current Government is virtually the same as it was in the previous Government. I think actually it is one lower than the previous Government. The intention of this Bill—this speaks to a point raised by a couple of Members—is not at all to increase the number of Ministers or the size of Government; it is simply to rectify the anomaly of unpaid Ministers in the other place. The right hon. Gentleman served in several Governments of this size over the past 10 years, and he asked why this Bill should come forward at this time. One answer to “Why now?” is that the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords proposed it in an amendment. It was put forward by the Conservative side. [ Interruption. ] The right hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that that was wrong.”
“As I have said, the Prime Minister polices the ministerial code and has responsibility for it. The independent adviser was given the power to initiate his own investigations of Ministers, which is, I think, an important step forward. It comes, in part, because of some of the problems we saw under the last Government. I think that the role of the independent adviser has been significantly strengthened under the present Government.”
“Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) said that nothing bold or radical is being put forward, but I point out that this Bill comes alongside a number of other reforms that this Government are delivering to modernise our democracy. Last week, following the Herculean efforts of the Paymaster General and others, legislation was finally passed to remove hereditary peers from this legislature—and not a moment too soon.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for flattering me by not putting me in the first or third group. As I say, the Labour party has a manifesto commitment to limit second jobs significantly. It is not about pulling up the drawbridge in all circumstances; there will be exemptions, particularly for people who serve in the NHS and so forth. However, I do think that we should consider the hon. Gentleman’s point. There is a basic expectation from the public that being a Member of this House is an MP’s one and only job, except in exceptional circumstances, but this matter is being dealt with by the Modernisation Committee, and we will look at its findings. The right hon.”
“I will not, because I know the right hon. Gentleman is not a great fan of that legislation. In a few months’ time, this Government will also introduce legislation to widen the franchise to people aged 16 and 17, delivering on our manifesto commitment. What better sign of bold and radical constitutional reform than removing hereditaries and broadening the franchise? I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, because I am feeling generous.”
“Bill accordingly read a Second time ; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day). Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill (Money) King’s recommendation signified. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)), That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided. —( Stephen Morgan .) Question agreed to.”
“I thought that the right hon. Gentleman might raise the bishops. He is quite right to say that the removal of hereditary peers is a step forward in modernising the other place, but it is not the conclusion of the process. Our manifesto commits to a number of things that will be included in the second phase of Lords reform. A Committee is being set up to advise on how we go forward. I look forward to debating that second phase with him, and issues including a retirement age and other steps for modernising the second Chamber. However, those steps are quite far removed from this Bill. As I said at the beginning of my speech, this is a simple Bill. It has a very narrow purpose, and it is designed to address a very simple inequity. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to.”
“Those are limited to the corrections and technical amendments and do not include the implementation of section 70 or the amendments relating to below-threshold contracts. In conclusion, the statutory instrument will complete an important part of the Procurement Act’s transparency offer. It will make payment publication meaningful by linking payments to contracts, it will close transparency gaps, and it will keep the system coherent and workable.”
“Additionally, they incorporate minor corrections and consequential amendments; notably, they will facilitate the move away from the old Contracts Finder system. That is intended to remove duplication and ensure that the new Find a Tender service is the single place to publish and find information. The draft regulations will generally apply to all of the UK, but in Scotland and Wales they would not be applicable if the procurement were carried out by devolved Scottish or Welsh contracting authorities, unless they were using a reserved procurement arrangement. The Government have obtained agreement from the relevant Northern Ireland Department in respect of provisions that apply to procurements regulated by Northern Ireland Ministers.”
“That will close a significant transparency gap, while improving the visibility of small and medium-sized enterprise and voluntary, community and social enterprise participation in public procurement. The draft regulations will also require contracting authorities to state in below-threshold tender notices when a competition is reserved for SMEs and/or VCSEs. That will make sure that when an opportunity is reserved for SMEs or VCSEs, it is clearly flagged up front so that it is easy to find, bid for and, hopefully, win. The draft regulations will also make a limited set of practical and technical amendments to keep the regime functioning as intended. That includes flexibility for direct awards in scenarios in which it is urgent to protect life, public order or safety, or where the central platform is unavailable.”
“This statutory instrument will implement section 70 of the Act by amending the Procurement Regulations 2024 to set out what payment information must be published for payments of more than £30,000 under public contracts, and how it must be published on the central digital platform. It is designed to be proportionate and manageable, requiring quarterly reporting and applying only to contracts procured from 1 April 2026. The draft regulations also include a small number of connected measures that will make the transparency system work properly across the market. They will ensure that, where a supplier is awarded a notifiable below-threshold contract, which is generally more than £12,000 for central Government and £30,000 for non-central government, they are registered on the central platform.”
“The public rightly want to know what the Government are buying, who we are buying it from and what we are paying. That is the gap that the draft regulations will fill. They will not change how contracts are awarded, but they will complete a key element of the Procurement Act’s transparency framework by making it possible to follow significant payments under public contracts, and on a single central platform. That will strengthen confidence in the system, support better contract management and drive better value for money. It will benefit contracting authorities and suppliers, and the taxpayer too, by tightening fraud prevention and ensuring proper scrutiny of how our money is spent.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Procurement (Amendment) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. The Procurement Act 2023, which was introduced under the last Government and passed with cross-party support, is a step forward in making public procurement simpler, more transparent and more trustworthy. It is not the whole journey, of course: we will be setting out further reforms shortly to ensure that our procurement budget goes further and does more to support jobs and growth and to reduce unnecessary burdens on businesses. The Act does deliver progress, however, and reflects a clear expectation from the public that procurement should be open to scrutiny, that spending should stand up to challenge and that public money should always deliver value.”
“Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire mentioned work with contracting authorities; we have worked very closely to get people ready for this measure and to make sure that it works properly. I thank everyone for their work and engagement. I hope that Members will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.”
“Member for Hazel Grove, there are no national security concerns that I am aware of, but I will write to her if anything further comes in on that. I am glad to have her support. The core of the draft regulations is simple: the public should always be able to follow significant payments under public contracts in a way that is meaningful, joined up and transparent. The regulations will help them to do that by linking payments to contracts and suppliers on one platform. I thank Cabinet Office officials for all their work on this SI and to implement the Act: a lot of work has gone on. I am grateful to colleagues across Government Departments and the local authorities that we have been closely working with. The hon.”
“I thank the hon. Members for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire and for Hazel Grove for the tone of their contributions. I welcome their cross-party support; as the draft regulations follow the Procurement Act introduced by the last Government, I would have been surprised not to get it, but it is still nice to hear it. In answer to the question about the central digital platform, it is fully operational. The final phase is to implement the last legislative requirements, which will be rolled out later this year, in time for the requirements coming into force. On the timetable, the technical amendments in the SI will come into force the day after they are made; others will come in on 1 April, and the changes related to Contracts Finder will come in on 1 October. On the points raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon.”
“The Scottish Government are implementing the agreement separately under their own legislation, which was laid before the Scottish Parliament on 7 January and considered by the Economy and Fair Work Committee on 4 February. The Scottish Parliament approved the SI on 18 February, and it will enter into force on 24 March. The territorial application of this SI in relation to contracts under the previous procurement regime extends to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The procurement chapter unlocks unprecedented access to India’s federal procurement market. It covers access to approximately 40,000 tenders per year worth at least £38 billion per annum. It is good news for British businesses and our economy, and I hope hon. Members will join me in supporting these regulations.”
“3 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Regulations 2024 are also being amended to ensure that the UK’s obligations under the agreement apply in relation to contracts that can still be entered into under the previous procurement regime. The territorial application of these regulations in relation to contracts under the 2023 Act extends to England and Northern Ireland. It also extends to Scotland and Wales, but not in respect of procurement carried out by a devolved Scottish authority or regulated by the Welsh Ministers. The Welsh Government, with whom we have been in discussion, are making a separate SI to implement this agreement. It was laid in the Senedd on 10 February and is scheduled for debate on 10 March and due to enter into force on 31 March, the day after these regulations.”
“As Committee members will know, the regulations were laid on 19 January in order to bring the trade agreement into force as quickly as possible while allowing for parliamentary scrutiny under the proper process. They will update schedule 9 to the Procurement Act 2023, implementing in domestic law the UK’s procurement obligations in the agreement. Suppliers entitled to benefit from it will be considered “treaty state suppliers” under section 89 of the Act, which will provide them with equal access and rights in UK public procurement as are afforded to UK suppliers. In turn, the agreement requires India to provide comparable access to UK suppliers. The Procurement Act 2023 (Commencement No.”
“We have also achieved commitments on fairness, openness and transparency, including the use and accessibility of e-procurement systems, and we have agreed requirements for the publishing of notices and awards of contracts and domestic review procedures for businesses to challenge should the chapter’s rules not be followed correctly. Our agreement is also significantly stronger than the political agreement the EU has now reached with India. In particular, we have negotiated unique access to India’s £38 billion federal procurement market, something the EU has not obtained. The EU also does not have any agreement relating to class 2 status under the Make in India policy. Those are the benefits of the agreement legislated for in the regulations; I will turn briefly to the process for introducing them.”